Leanne R. Ketterlin-Geller

Repeated Reading Interventions for Students with Learning Disabilities: Status of the Evidence:

For students with or at risk for learning disabilities, developing fluency with reading connected texts remains a formidable challenge. In response, teachers often use repeated reading practices designed to provide students with multiple exposures to the same words. This study examined research focused on determining the efficacy of repeated reading approaches for improving reading fluency for students with or at risk for learning disabilities. Studies employed experimental/quasi-experimental and single-subject research designs. Results suggest that repeated reading is not supported by rigorous research as defined by the quality indicators used and, therefore, is not an evidence-based practice based on those criteria for students with and at risk for learning disabilities. Implications for future research and for practice are discussed.

Teaching Writing to At-Risk Students: The Quality of Evidence for Self-Regulated Strategy Development

This study evaluates the quality of the research and evidence base for a writing intervention called Self-Regulated Strategy Development (SRSD; Graham & Harris, 1989; Harris & Graham, 1996) for students with and at risk for learning disabilities, using criteria for group research studies suggested by Gersten et al. (2005) and single-subject research studies suggested by Horner et al. (2005). Five experimental and quasi-experimental studies and 16 single-subject studies investigating SRSD were analyzed on numerous methodological dimensions. Both the group design and single-subject studies also met proposed standards for an evidence-based practice. The potential value of analyzing approaches and interventions using the proposed quality indicators and standards for evidence-based practices is discussed, as are implications for research and practice.

Making Connections in Mathematics: Conceptual Mathematics Intervention for Low-Performing Students

In this study, the authors examined the effects of two supplemental interventions on the mathematics achievement of low-performing intermediate-grade students. A conceptually based intervention designed to reteach fundamental mathematics was evaluated along with an intervention designed to provide extended time in the context of the core curriculum and aligned with the general education classrooms daily instruction. After a 16-week intervention with 51 low-performing fifth-grade students, the authors found that the students in both intervention groups outperformed students in the control group on a measure of mathematics achievement. On a state accountability measure in mathematics, students in the extended core group performed better than other students. Implications for instructional decision making and supplemental interventions are discussed.

Rethinking Instructional Delivery for Diverse Student Populations Serving All Learners with Concept-Based Instruction

When students arrive at content classes reading below grade level, teachers are challenged to deliver complex content. Also, students often study facts without reaching larger concepts. Research at the University of Oregon has concluded that if the teacher takes responsibility for identifying and elucidating the concept within course materials, both of these difficulties can be overcome. Overt identification of concepts and their characteristics and the deliberate use of graphic organizers reduce the reading comprehension demands placed on students with low abilities. Using the functional taxonomy presented, teachers can develop effective student exercises and assessments. An example shows that students provided with the concept-based approach outperformed students in a more traditional classroom on a problem-solving task.

Effects of Concept-Based Instruction on an English Language Learner in a Rural School: A Descriptive Case Study.

Abstract The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 calls for a radical restructuring of the educational system, forcing low-performing schools and districts to make widespread changes in current assessment policies and instructional practices. Our previous research on low-performing students and students with disabilities indicates that significant gains in learning can be attained by intentionally aligning curriculum and instruction with assessment using an instructional approach called concept-based instruction. The purpose of this paper is to describe the positive impact of concept-based instruction on one English language learner in a rural school district. This research is part of a much larger effort at validating concept-based instruction as an instructional approach.

Improving Math Programming for Students at Risk Introduction to the Special Topic Issue

Response to Intervention (RTI) is a process of systematically integrating assessment and instruction to evaluate and address student needs through the use of research-based instructional practices. RTI is based on a three-tiered prevention model. Tier 1 consists of all students; they are provided with general instruction and assessment. Students who find success at Tier 1 are students who respond well to the general education curriculum and learn through typically delivered instruction without additional intervention, support, or monitoring. Tier 2 consists of some students who receive supplementary instruction and assessment. Students in this category often encounter learning challenges that cannot be addressed fully within the general education curriculum. And finally, a limited number of students receive Tier 3 support in the form of specialized instruction and assessment (Brown-Chidsey & Steege, 2005). Students who receive instruction at Tier 3, the smallest group of students, are those who require additional and/or intensive instruction, frequent monitoring, and the support of an intervention team. Depending on how the RTI model is implemented in a particular school or school district, this group of students may or may not qualify for special education services. In the past, our educational system had essentially two tiers: general and special education. Students who did not do well in the general education curriculum were referred to, and oftentimes qualified for, special education. In light of this traditional two-tiered model, much has been published about curriculum, instruction, and assessment at Tier 1, including research on core curricula (see for example the What Works Clearinghouse, 2002); differentiation of large-group instruction (see for example the work of Carol Tomlinson and, in particular, Tomlinson & McTighe, 2006); and whole group, classroom-based assessment systems (see for example the work of James Popham and, in particular, Popham, 2003). Similarly, much attention has been focused on educating students who receive special education—those students requiring intensive and specialized instruction to reach their educational goals. Federal laws have been written mandating appropriate instruction for these students, professional research journals have published thousands of articles on effective curricula, instruction and assessment for this group of students, and private and federal funding has supported empirical investigations into effective programming for students with disabilities. As such, support is generally available for students in Tier 1 and Tier 3. RTI, with its three-tiered approach, has created a need for validated curriculum, instruction, and assessment practices for students in Tier 2. Moreover, as schools focus increasingly on students who are on the bubble in terms of passing statewide tests, there is a renewed interest in meeting the needs of students who may be at risk for failing to pass these accountability measures. A limited number of research studies in the domain of reading have shown increased achievement gains for students at Tier 2 when they are exposed to a comprehensive, standards-based curriculum; provided with evidence-based instruction; and monitored closely for achievement gains (Denton, Fletcher, Anthony, & Francis, 2006; Speece, Case, & Molloy, 2003). Additional research is needed, however, to verify these findings for students who are struggling in the area of mathematics. We must ensure that mathematics teachers have, at their hands, the same quality and quantity of evidence-based practices for students receiving Tier 2 support as for all other students. Remedial and Special Education Volume 29 Number 1 January/February 2008 5-8

Instructional Adaptations: Accommodations and Modifications That Support Accessible Instruction

This chapter discusses accessibility of classroom-based instruction to support students with disabilities in educational environments. Specifically, we articulate assumptions related to the content of instruction and student performance expectations when making instructional adaptations as well as potential consequences of misalignment between adaptations used in instruction and assessment. We identify distinctions underlying the use of instructional accommodations as opposed to instructional modifications and present examples to illustrate the similarities and differences between these adaptations. This chapter is intended to help special education service providers, administrators, and policy makers understand the role of instructional adaptations for improving the accessibility of educational environments.

Embedded Technology: Current and Future Practices for Increasing Accessibility for All Students

This article highlights the technological solutions available for increasing the accessibility of educational materials for students with disabilities. Special attention is paid to design features for supporting the needs of students with disabilities in computer-based tests; however, many of the same technologies can be applied to instructional environments. Current technologies such as assistive devices are discussed as well as emerging strategies for embedding flexibility into learning and testing interfaces. In addition, advances in the field of ambient intelligence are described as they might apply to educational environments.

How Do Critical Thinking Measures Fit within Standards-Based Reform?.

In this article, we consider three components of the current assessment landscape and analyze the problems inherent in documenting student performance and progress. In particular, we focus on middle-secondary subject matter. First, we address state standards that are fundamental to most large-scale assessment systems. Then, we reference the curriculum, critiquing the text structures that frame content information and eventually limit the type of learning that can be documented. Finally, we consider critical thinking measures, an alternative procedure for monitoring student performance and progress. We end with an analysis of alignment between the three components.

Administrators as Advocates for Teacher Collaboration

This column contends that administrators are responsible for constructing a culture of collaboration in their schools and that ultimately, the facilitation of collaboration affects students’ academic achievement. Within the context of a leadership scenario, this article outlines the need for, function of, and logistical implementation of collaboration. Administrators can help teachers’ collaborative instructional design and delivery efforts by focusing on collective expertise development and dissemination, implementation strategies, and the development of assessment expertise. Four tools are included to assist in guiding and sustaining collaboration to support the academic success of students with disabilities.